Does Democracy Deserve Its Citizens?
Democracy is often described as the government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is also said that every country gets the government it deserves. But a more fundamental question is whether its citizens themselves deserve democracy.
Winston Churchill famously observed that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the others that had been tried. Yet the same Churchill was deeply sceptical about the ability of Indians to govern themselves. The coming years may test both his scepticism and the resilience of India’s democratic experiment. They will reveal whether the four pillars of democracy — the legislature, executive, judiciary and media — understand their responsibilities, and whether ordinary citizens appreciate what democracy demands of them.
The question is not merely whether governments are accountable to the people, but whether people are prepared to respect the institutional processes through which democratic accountability is exercised.
Global Contagion
Violent street protests have precipitated regime changes in Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. These countries hardly have an unblemished record of mature democratic governance. Yet the phenomenon is not confined to developing countries. France, a mature European democracy, has witnessed demonstrations threatening to spiral out of control. Belgium, Italy, Albania, Germany, Spain and Portugal have also experienced protests driven by similar grievances.
The observation attributed to Austrian Chancellor Klemens von Metternich that when France sneezes, the rest of Europe catches a cold seems to have acquired a contemporary political dimension.
Rising living costs, demands for greater education budgets and dissatisfaction with government policies are legitimate subjects of public debate. Yet they are inherently subjective and potentially limitless. There will always be citizens who believe that prices are too high, public expenditure inadequate or government priorities misplaced.
But burning public buildings, looting shops, paralysing cities and holding ordinary citizens hostage cannot resolve these problems. Such destruction can only aggravate the very conditions protesters claim to be fighting.
Dissatisfaction is an enduring feature of human nature. The familiar political question — are you better off today than you were a few years ago? — is designed to exploit precisely this sentiment. Political parties across the world use it to mobilise opinion and build a case for changing governments.
The challenge is particularly acute for younger generations. They face a world marked by seemingly interminable wars, anxieties about artificial intelligence displacing jobs, renewed protectionism and the increasingly visible consequences of climate change. Such uncertainties create fertile ground for political mobilisation against incumbent governments.
Authoritarian governments often respond to unrest with brute force. Democratic governments face a more complicated dilemma of protecting public order without trampling upon the constitutional right to dissent.
When violent protests erupt against democratically elected governments, are they necessarily the expression of a helpless majority that has exhausted every democratic avenue? Or can they represent a relatively small but organised minority overwhelming the silent majority through street power?
Indian Predicament
India’s experience needs to be examined against this international backdrop, but with an important distinction. Several major agitations over the past decade have been triggered not merely by general economic dissatisfaction but by specific decisions taken by elected governments.
The Citizenship Amendment Act and the proposed National Register of Citizens, the three farm laws, NEET examination paper leaks and disagreements over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls have all generated substantial public opposition.
Citizens unquestionably have the right to question government decisions, organise protests and demand accountability. Peaceful demonstrations are essential to democracy. But there is an important distinction between exercising the right to dissent and attempting to substitute street power for institutional decision-making.
In a constitutional democracy, disagreements over the legality of government decisions can be taken to the courts. Policy disagreements can be contested in Parliament and State legislatures, debated publicly and carried into electoral campaigns. A party that secures a mandate can subsequently seek to reverse an existing policy through the appropriate legislative process.
These mechanisms may be slow and imperfect, but they are the foundations of representative government. Seeking to force a particular policy outcome through coercive street mobilisation raises a larger question: is the objective to persuade the democratic majority or overrule it?
The legitimacy of a protest cannot be established merely by the intensity of the noise it generates or the number of roads it blocks.
The maturity of ordinary citizens is as important as the conduct of political institutions. The legislature, executive and judiciary must demonstrate zero tolerance for attempts to subvert democratic processes in the name of democracy itself. Opposition parties, too, must resist the temptation to exploit every public grievance for immediate political advantage. Such precedents can eventually boomerang on the very parties that set them.
But responsibility cannot be outsourced entirely to political leaders and institutions. Citizens must develop the ability to form independent opinions, particularly when public mobilisation threatens to disrupt everyday life.
When an agitation seeks mass participation and deliberately paralyses arterial roads and essential services, ordinary citizens face a choice. They must decide whether the grievance is legitimate, whether the proposed remedy is proportionate and whether the methods being advocated serve the larger public interest.
This requires citizens to look beyond political affiliations and examine the substance of an issue. It becomes especially important when virtually every institution is routinely accused of being biased or compromised.
The controversy over SIR illustrates this complexity. Questions concerning the legality of the Election Commission’s decision-making process, including whether the required institutional consensus existed, are matters for the judiciary. If the revised voter-enrolment process imposes excessive procedural burdens on citizens, that is a legitimate administrative concern requiring dialogue and corrective action.
However, alleging partisan or communal discrimination requires evidence. The fact that an electoral revision process may be cumbersome or poorly administered does not establish that it is designed to disadvantage particular political parties, communities or constituencies. The process itself does not discriminate on the basis of a voter’s State, constituency, religion, age or previous voting preference. Claiming that ostensibly neutral criteria selectively disadvantage opposition parties or particular communities, without establishing how this happens, can actually lend credibility to the ruling party’s argument for stringent SIR in the first place.
The Election Commission must nevertheless communicate its rationale, procedures and safeguards clearly. The executive and, crucially, the media have a responsibility to explain the implications of such decisions rather than merely amplify competing political allegations.
A large democracy will inevitably encounter errors in electoral rolls, administrative shortcomings and instances of misuse of laws. But these failures do not automatically establish that the entire electoral process is compromised or that the rule of law has collapsed.
Dissent and Disorder
There is a danger, nevertheless, in assuming that every street protest represents mobocracy. The right to assemble and protest cannot be made conditional upon the convenience of those in power.
But neither can this right become an unrestricted licence to intimidate, destroy property or deny other citizens their fundamental freedoms.
The experience of violent unrest in cities such as Paris demonstrates how quickly civic order can deteriorate when the authority of law is challenged on the streets. Governments must prepare for the worst, but their response must remain within constitutional limits. Hoping for the best without preparing for the worst can have disastrous consequences.
Democracy may give people the government they deserve. But it is the conduct, judgment and restraint of ordinary citizens, particularly when passions run high, that ultimately determine whether they deserve democracy itself.
(The writer has worked in the information technology sector. Views personal.)
